Lord's Supper - Why the Early Church Got it Wrong! 

James 1:26,27

Please watch the video first. Not what I was presenting in it.

Not quite - it’s was the earlier church this video examines.

You do not have single first generation believer noted there. Call them early would be like calling Biden a founding father of the USA. The closest you have is Ignatius, and his writings are a little scary as he says in every letter that looking upon an elder is like looking upon the face of God. He also had to “convince” and older Polycarp, who was a child of elders in Paul’s home church, that Clement was not the first Bishop of Rome. Reading his letters and Irenaeus you can see the 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation hijacking Orthodoxy, just like happens today when there is a legitimate revival.

Thanks. But I don’t was talking about the very first believers that Paul was writing to and why he was correcting their problematic views.

@@TheCaffeinatedBible I was replying to the OP here. There are almost no surviving writing from the 1st or 2nd generation, and that probably has something to do with the Catholic organization. The writings of the supposed ECFs are inconsistent, contain beliefs that are wildly unbiblical, and few of any agree 100% with any popular systematic today. The one interesting pattern I see is that Clement and Polycarp’s writings are filled with scripture and compatibly little commentary. That quickly does away, and we end up with Orthodoxy and Catholicism. How many times did Jesus repeat, “You jabbed been told,” and then crush that with, “but it is WRITTEN.” False teaching hates the concrete nature of the written Word.

Thanks for the positive feedback.

Our faith is false if the early Church is this wrong.

@jd3jefferson556 watch the video. It’s about how they got it wrong and why 1 Corinthians is so important as a text that addressed these issues.

@TheCaffeinatedBible Christianity is a false religion if Christ isn't truly, really, and substantially present in the Most Holy Eucharist. If this is a false belief, then I am going back to being an atheist, there's no point to being Christian, because they're just as confused as everyone else in the world. If Christians worshipped the Holy Bread as God, and it took the morally questionable reformers to change this belief in the Church and they all couldn't even agree on this issue, then Christianity is a failed religion, Jesus was never God, because the fires of hell clearly prevailed. Having read, I don't see what Protestants see on Jesus speaking symbolically. "My Flesh is true Food and my Blood is true Drink" seems pretty straightforward

@@jd3jefferson556 Thanks for your comments. You might want to watch a more Catholic oriented channel, or at least a RU-vid presenter who is Catholic. May I suggest "Catholic Productions." Its a very good channel, and I am sure you would that their views are closer to yours.

well I don't think the guy you're replying to wants to be in an echo chamber of affirmations, he and I want to challenge ourselves and others, so you ought to engage with people who oppose your stance

May I ask what church you’re from?

(orthodox, Catholic Anglican, other)?

Catholic

excellent breakdown.

Thanks.

If John 6 is literally referring to the Lord's supper why is there no mention of doing this in remembrance of him, or the new covenant in his blood? Also, in John 6 Jesus is addressing the crowds not his disciples, nor is he in the upper room. If we are going to read the text literally like this then we need to be consistent. Finally, there is not bread or wine in John 6 but blood and meat/flesh which makes a literal reading as this being the Lord's supper more difficult once again.

@@TheCaffeinatedBible and away we go.... John 6:25-71, the Bread of Life Discourse, but first… When people wrongly take Jesus literally. Jesus corrects them and explains: John 3:3-5, 6:32-35, 8:31-36, 12:11-14, 4:31-34, Mat 16:5-12, Mat 19:24-26 When people rightly take Jesus literally Jesus confirms and repeats: Mat 8:2-6, Jn 8:36-59, Jn 6:45-51. One of the few exceptions when Jesus does not explain, is Jn 2:19, but the Gospel's writer does explain that "temple" means Jesus' body. The figurative use of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in the 1st c. Semetic context... In Aramaic, as well as Hebrew, Arabic, Koine Greek, and even Modern Greek, to "eat the flesh and drink the blood" of another human being has a specific figurative or metaphorical meaning, namely to destroy, assault, persecute; especially by slander or calumny. The late Anne Rice let me know (yes, THAT Anne Rice, via the old Amazon forums) that even today, a Middle East laborer will say "I drank my own blood today" as a metaphor for an especially hard work day Even in Scripture, this figurative usage is consistent... Ps 27:2 evildoers devour my flesh Is 9:18:20 each devours neighbor's flesh Is 49:26 make your oppressors eat their own flesh Micah 3:3 eat the flesh of my people, chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a cauldron 2Sam 23:15-17 Shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives? Therefore [David] would not drink it Rev 17:5, 16 make her desolate and naked and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire In short,... 1. The common and Scriptural figurative use of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" applied to John 6 makes Jesus an imbecile. 2. Jesus does NOT provide an alternate (strained, clumsy) meaning… John 6:25-71, the Bread of Life Discourse, but first… When people wrongly take Jesus literally. Jesus corrects them and explains: John 3:3-5, 6:32-35, 8:31-36, 12:11-14, 4:31-34, Mat 16:5-12, Mat 19:24-26 When people rightly take Jesus literally Jesus confirms and repeats: Mat 8:2-6, Jn 8:36-59, Jn 6:45-51. One of the few exceptions when Jesus does not explain, is Jn 2:19, but the Gospel's writer does explain that "temple" means Jesus' body. The figurative use of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" in the 1st c. Semetic context... In Aramaic, as well as Hebrew, Arabic, Koine Greek, and even Modern Greek, to "eat the flesh and drink the blood" of another human being has a specific figurative or metaphorical meaning, namely to destroy, assault, persecute; especially by slander or calumny. The late Anne Rice let me know (yes, THAT Anne Rice, via the old Amazon forums) that even today, a Middle East laborer will say "I drank my own blood today" as a metaphor for an especially hard work day Even in Scripture, this figurative usage is consistent... Ps 27:2 evildoers devour my flesh Is 9:18:20 each devours neighbor's flesh Is 49:26 make your oppressors eat their own flesh Micah 3:3 eat the flesh of my people, chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a cauldron 2Sam 23:15-17 Shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives? Therefore [David] would not drink it Rev 17:5, 16 make her desolate and naked and devour her flesh and burn her up with fire In short,... The common and Scriptural figurative use of "eat my flesh and drink my blood" applied to John 6 makes Jesus an imbecile. Jesus does NOT provide an alternate (strained, clumsy) meaning… Rather Jesus repeatedly reinforced his listeners' literal understanding of his words....

@@TheCaffeinatedBible The Bread of Life (BoL) sermon is preceded by two miracles relating to faith, and like the BoL discourse, both are related to Jesus' Divinity despite his veil of humanity. Jn 6:1-15, the feeding of the 5000, other than the Resurrection of Jesus, this is the only miracle which is in all four Gospels. --Passover is close at hand (4) and therefore the Last Supper a year away. ---Jesus tests Phillip, who only sees with natural eyes and reason (the flesh, later) on how to feed the multitude. ---JESUS gives thanks (eucharista) and multiplies the 5 loaves and 2 fish to feed the crowd to satiation, a foreshadowing of Jesus' own body and blood being able to spiritually feed BILLIONS. Before we leave the feeding of the 5000, consider the types of miracles Jesus performed through his career. Yes, he was similar to other Jewish wonder workers, in healings and, exorcisms, but in kind and degree Jesus was something else. The 5000's feeding far surpassed that of Elijah's praying for the everlasting flour and oil to feed himself, the Widow, and her son-- it was far more like the Mana of Exodus. The transformation of water into wine at Cana was not only unlike anything a prior prophet did, it was done because a believer's faith (his mother's) was absolutely trusting. The other miracle, preceding the BoL discourse, pertaining to Jesus' identity, is the walking on water, In 6:16-21, Mk 6:45-53. The Apostles were frightened as Mark says as Jesus was "passing them by"... What an odd thing to be frightened by except every Jewish listener who instantly get the references to God doing the same thing. Ex 33:13-19, with Moses and Aaron in the cleft of s rock as the Lord "passed them by". Likewise, 1 Kings 19:11-14, God passes by Elijah. The reinforcement of THE Divinity speaking is Jesus' words, "it is I" which is the same usage of "I AM" in the Koine Septuagint of Ex 3:14 Also, the " do not be afraid" in Mk 6:50, Jn 6:20, is what God frequently says, either by himself or through angels: Gen 26:24, Jud 6:22-23, Lk 1:30 Finally, the immediate calm shows Jesus, like the Lord in Job 9:8, has complete and instant command over nature.

When Jesus walks into Capernaum the morning following the calming of the storm, the region is abuzz with the feeding of the 5000. Jesus chides them for seeking perishable food ; seek the bread that sustains eternal life v.25-28 The crowd challenges Jesus to give them bread greater than Mana, v. 29-31 Jesus says the true bread of heaven is what gives life to the world, that he, Jesus is the bread of life, fulfilling all hunger and thirst, but his listeners see him and do not believe; but those who do believe have Eternal Life v. 33-40. These particular Jews see Jesus naturally, carnally, with the flesh (Room 8:1-8, 1 Cor 2:10 - 3:3), they can only see Jesus as the son of Joseph, cannot comprehend Jesus actually being from heaven. Jesus hears them and reinforces his actual co-identity with the Father; you only get to the Father through Jesus and Jesus is the only one who has seen the Father. , V. 41-44

IF Jesus stopped at this point, the Catholic Church wouldn't use John 6 to teach the Real Presence. But Jesus does not stop. Jesus then makes it crystal clear; he who eats the living bread of heaven--Jesus--will have Eternal Life and the Jews understand him literally.v. 45-52 Jesus does NOT correct any literal misunderstanding on their part. Jesus DOES CONFIRM their literal understanding. "The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Jesus said to them "Amen, Amen [Truly, truly, it is so, it is so, it's a fact, it's a fact, you heard me correctly, you heard me correctly] I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him..." v. 52-57 Eating IS believing v.35-47 Believing leads to eating v. 48-58.

Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. Please watch the video though before commenting. This is not what I was arguing in this video. Also, if you are interested in transubstantiation positions on the Lord's Supper then you may want to check out Catholic Productions. Dr. Brandt Pitre does an excellent job explaining Catholic doctrine and biblical interpretation.

Are we going to be judged based off of Roman Catholic Church tradition? Or is God going to judge us according to his word?

Thanks for your engagement with the video. One thing to realize is that the doctrine and theological concepts behind the Lord’s supper has varied and been debated for this 2000 years. And biblically alone you need to decide which version are you going to follow - Matthew and Mark’s, Luke’s or Paul’s. They are close but present their own perspective as well.